W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: ***Re: OVERVIEW: WG preference - action from telecon

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:05:30 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2264381C.49D42F88-ONC1256CC3.007DA74F-C1256CC3.007EDE39@agfa.be>

On 2003-02-04 08:17 PM, Dan Connolly wrote (with a broken finger)
> On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 11:20, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> > I think Ian's statement is in contradiction with Jims message to me
that says
> > "The discussion
> > of this feature can look liek the discussion of the other features
> > that have restrictions in lite - i.e. the paragraph just says
> > smething like "can only be used with named classes" (oe however that
> > is made clear in the Overview)."
> >
> > I understood the decision to add intersection of named classes only and
I stated
> > in the Overview
> > that one had to name classes for restrictions.
> > I thought one reason we did named classes was so that systems like
protege could
> > handle this feature.
> >
> > We need clarification on this immediately.
> > I think it should stay named classes only so that systems like protege
> > ontolingua that do not have support for unnamed restrictions without
> > terms can support owl lite more easily.
> > if it was really is intersection of named classes and unnamed
restrictions the
> > overview can be updated quickly but Frank and I need email asap with
the group
> > answer.
> I presume there's an answer in AS&S for the careful reader...
> but this seems to merit a test case or two regardless, so that
> folks working on protoge etc. will get black-and-white
> clarification.

Amazing, we already have some approved OWL Lite testcases with
owl:intersectionOf and named classes and unnamed restrictions


(for the details, one can also look at

Further looking into the testcases, I think we should then also have that


(after adding some type declarations in it) is then Lite
or that

    xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/intersectionOf/premises001" >

    <owl:Class rdf:about="#B">
        <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
            <owl:Class rdf:about="#Student"/>
            <owl:Class rdf:about="#Employee"/>

    <owl:Class rdf:about="#C">
        <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
            <owl:Class rdf:about="#Employee"/>
            <owl:Class rdf:about="#Student"/>

    <first:B rdf:about="#John"/>


===OWL Lite entails===


    <first:C rdf:about="premises001#John"/>


Is that right???

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 18:06:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC